From an evolutionary perspective, it would have to be said that there are dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of precise and harmonious "PAIRINGS" in any given organism, which occurred by complete mistake - referring to the formation of *physical attributes*, and their "counterpart" *mental capabilities*.

P. A spider's ability to spin a webM. The neural *pathways and connections* such that the spider can not only operate the spinner, but instinctively create a web!

P. A honey bee's ability to secrete royal jellyM. The neural *pathways and connections* such that the bee can not only operate the secretion mechanism, but also possess the "know how" to use it for nutrition of larvae and the queen bee!

P. A wasp's stingerM. The neural *pathways and connections* such that the wasp has the "know how" to "anesthetize" grubs to make them available for food, etc.

P. Our respiratory systemM. The neural *pathways and connections* that enable our brains to CONTROL the respiratory system!

P. Every single muscle in the body of every "muscled creature" with a brain!M. The neural *pathways and connections* that fire, and enable those muscles to work and move!

There are quite literally MILLIONS of examples that could be given, once again with dozens, hundreds, or even *thousands* of examples available PER living organism, depending on complexity.

How could random mistakes occur at BOTH ends of the spectrum (for both "P" and "M") in millions of cases, to create these kinds of matchups and pairings, such that things work in relatively perfect unison and harmony *together*?

This also raises INFINITE "which came first" questions, such as in the case of the eye, and visual center of the brain, or, the respiratory system, and the specific neural connectivity in the brain that regulates breathing (part of the medulla oblongata)... Which of these came first?

Natural selection is not a solution to this "pairing dilemma", because for example, the eye organ is useless without the right mental capabilties, and mental capabilities are useless without the eye! One could go right on down a list of millions of pairings, as mentioned, and note a similar lack of fitness benefit unless both P and M exist simultaneously!

This leaves so-called "convergent evolution", but that also is of no help, simply due to the impossiblity that MILLIONS of pairings between physical attributes and mental capabilities would need to have evolved *simultaneously*, often over millions of years. Random mutation is not a synchronized process! One cannot rationally justify the supposed evolutionary mechanism of random mutation shuffling the genomic sequence on the physical end of the spectrum, while *at the very same time* shuffling things on the mental end of the spectrum, such that the two sides match up and function together (and are therefore reasonably "selectable").

...A second problem with convergent evolution is the sheer *variety* in species. Spiders don't make royal jelly. Honey bees don't make silk. Fish can't clench a fist. Humans can't wag their tail. Dogs don't lay eggs. The list is infinite. So it cannot be claimed that one "P and M pairing" in a given organism, is in every case the result of an evolutionary step up from an ancestor's P and M pairing. Even if this were true in many cases, it would still leave *countless* unique pairings in creatures with very unique physical attributes, that require unique mental capabilities to operate them and know what to do with them!

So, why does my hand work?

According to evolution, it works because TWO series of MINDLESS MISTAKES enable it to: One series of mistakes accounting for the physical side of things. And another accounting for the mental side of things to control the hand.

According to creation, it works because a super-intelligent creator made my hand TOGETHER with the brain that controls it!

Again I must ask you to explain your posts.. Goldliger has spent alot of time in writing his thread here, only to have you respond to it with a simple unsupported claim and a link. Such is not how you debate and I hope you do not do this in the formal debate you challenged me to.

Again I must ask you to explain your posts.. Goldliger has spent alot of time in writing his thread here, only to have you respond to it with a simple unsupported claim and a link. Such is not how you debate and I hope you do not do this in the formal debate you challenged me to.

Ha, no, I wanted a debate so we could concentrate on a smaller area and we could answer fully. This wasn't even a debate point, just a simple correction that he had used a term incorrectly that was all. It was a friendly correction for him.

But if he wants a definition, convergent evolution is when two seperate species on different evolutionary lines converge on the same trait. So for example both bats and dolphins use echolocation, however they both evolved this trait independently as they are on different evolutionary lines. Hope this helps.

Ha, no, I wanted a debate so we could concentrate on a smaller area and we could answer fully. This wasn't even a debate point, just a simple correction that he had used a term incorrectly that was all. It was a friendly correction for him.

But if he wants a definition, convergent evolution is when two seperate species on different evolutionary lines converge on the same trait. So for example both bats and dolphins use echolocation, however they both evolved this trait independently as they are on different evolutionary lines. Hope this helps.

Yes I agree to that definition of convergent evolution...

Here is mine,

Convergent evolution allows the evolutionist to have his / her cake and eat it too. Attempting to explain similar traits that exist but are unable to be explained along the lines of descent. In other words, similar traits "prove" evolution, and now dis-similar traits "prove" evolution.... No wonder its claimed to be a "fact".

EDIT:

I'll add that to my knowledge convergent evolution was added as an ad hoc hypothesis, (like all pseudo-science).

Convergent evolution allows the evolutionist to have his / her cake and eat it too. Attempting to explain similar traits that exist but are unable to be explained along the lines of descent. In other words, similar traits "prove" evolution, and now dis-similar traits "prove" evolution.... No wonder its claimed to be a "fact".

Like I said, I wasn't making a debate point I was simply trying to correct it for his post. As you said, he spent a lot of time on it and it would be a shame for for the post overall if his definitions were incorrect.

Like I said, I wasn't making a debate point I was simply trying to correct it for his post. As you said, he spent a lot of time on it and it would be a shame for for the post overall if his definitions were incorrect.

Very true

Now that we have the mis-use of convergent evolution out of the way.. (Unless goldliger has a boon of knowledge that can clarify the links between his claims)

What do you say about the OP in that for each physical trait there needs to be the mechanism/s of systems in order to utilise the trait... Most often requiring nerves and brain power, and sometimes other systems.

This is a macro form of the argument to irreducible complexity, I was saying before. But instead of cellular systems we have here systems within entire organisms.

Another example can be the bombadier beetle, how did it "learn" to harness its unique ability without blowing itself up.. Remember there is no sharing of past experiences or bit-by-bit genetic changes since once its blown up it can have no offspring.

Now that we have the mis-use of convergent evolution out of the way.. (Unless goldliger has a boon of knowledge that can clarify the links between his claims)

What do you say about the OP in that for each physical trait there needs to be the mechanism/s of systems in order to utilise the trait... Most often requiring nerves and brain power, and sometimes other systems.

This is a macro form of the argument to irreducible complexity, I was saying before. But instead of cellular systems we have here systems within entire organisms.

Another example can be the bombadier beetle, how did it "learn" to harness its unique ability without blowing itself up.. Remember there is no sharing of past experiences or bit-by-bit genetic changes since once its blown up it can have no offspring.

The bombardier beetle is a very interesting beetle that's for sure. I'm not sure what you mean by "blowing itself up". I suppose you think that hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones are reactive alone? Or are you taking into consideration the catalyst as well? I'm not sure, anyway, if you do think they alone "explode" then I can see where one problem lies and Dawkins answers that problem in a short video (about 1:30 in)

As for the evolution of the Bombardier beetle? A lot more work needs to be done, that's for sure, but here is a very probable explanation for it's complexity.

[quote]Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]

Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [Eisner, 1970])

Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.

The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])

A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.

Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.

Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior.

The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ.
This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [Forsyth, 1970]

Eisner et al., 2000]

The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.

Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles.

The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.[/quote] (taken from talk origins)

The above isn't necessarily in the right order, the article goes on to discuss the work that is still needed, the point is that this is a completely plausable, slow, gradual process that can explain seemingly impossible complexity.

I don't want to go too much into it here, I would prefer to save it for our debate if that's ok? This isn't trolling or throwing an argument and running, the only purpose of my original post was to clarfy a definition for the OP. There is little point of me asking for a debate to save time and then getting myself into the same issues again

It is something I would very much like to discuss in our debate though, it is very interesting.

[quote] name='goldliger' timestamp='1333358616' post='82753']
How does evolution explain this problem?...

From an evolutionary perspective, it would have to be said that there are dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of precise and harmonious "PAIRINGS" in any given organism, which occurred by complete mistake - referring to the formation of *physical attributes*, and their "counterpart" *mental capabilities*.

P. A spider's ability to spin a web
M. The neural *pathways and connections* such that the spider can not only operate the spinner, but instinctively create a web!

P. A honey bee's ability to secrete royal jelly
M. The neural *pathways and connections* such that the bee can not only operate the secretion mechanism, but also possess the "know how" to use it for nutrition of larvae and the queen bee!

P. A wasp's stinger
M. The neural *pathways and connections* such that the wasp has the "know how" to "anesthetize" grubs to make them available for food, etc.

P. Our respiratory system
M. The neural *pathways and connections* that enable our brains to CONTROL the respiratory system!

P. Every single muscle in the body of every "muscled creature" with a brain!
M. The neural *pathways and connections* that fire, and enable those muscles to work and move!

There are quite literally MILLIONS of examples that could be given, once again with dozens, hundreds, or even *thousands* of examples available PER living organism, depending on complexity.

How could random mistakes occur at BOTH ends of the spectrum (for both "P" and "M") in millions of cases, to create these kinds of matchups and pairings, such that things work in relatively perfect unison and harmony *together*?

This also raises INFINITE "which came first" questions, such as in the case of the eye, and visual center of the brain, or, the respiratory system, and the specific neural connectivity in the brain that regulates breathing (part of the medulla oblongata)... Which of these came first?

Natural selection is not a solution to this "pairing dilemma", because for example, the eye organ is useless without the right mental capabilties, and mental capabilities are useless without the eye! One could go right on down a list of millions of pairings, as mentioned, and note a similar lack of fitness benefit unless both P and M exist simultaneously!

This leaves so-called "convergent evolution", but that also is of no help, simply due to the impossiblity that MILLIONS of pairings between physical attributes and mental capabilities would need to have evolved *simultaneously*, often over millions of years. Random mutation is not a synchronized process! One cannot rationally justify the supposed evolutionary mechanism of random mutation shuffling the genomic sequence on the physical end of the spectrum, while *at the very same time* shuffling things on the mental end of the spectrum, such that the two sides match up and function together (and are therefore reasonably "selectable").

...A second problem with convergent evolution is the sheer *variety* in species. Spiders don't make royal jelly. Honey bees don't make silk. Fish can't clench a fist. Humans can't wag their tail. Dogs don't lay eggs. The list is infinite. So it cannot be claimed that one "P and M pairing" in a given organism, is in every case the result of an evolutionary step up from an ancestor's P and M pairing. Even if this were true in many cases, it would still leave *countless* unique pairings in creatures with very unique physical attributes, that require unique mental capabilities to operate them and know what to do with them!

So, why does my hand work?

According to evolution, it works because TWO series of MINDLESS MISTAKES enable it to: One series of mistakes accounting for the physical side of things. And another accounting for the mental side of things to control the hand.

According to creation, it works because a super-intelligent creator made my hand TOGETHER with the brain that controls it!

The first is logically impossible. The second is logically obvious.
[/quote]

Gold.

Notice that the first atheist post against you is that you don't understand evolution. I submit that it's hard to hit an evolutionist with a hand full of buckshot. No matter how you define it, it is wrong.

A good post, but I have often thought that a better question to ask an evolutionist is what or who tells the brain to send a signal on the neural pathways? The brain is physical, while the mind is not physical and can't evolve from the physical.

Notice that the first atheist post against you is that you don't understand evolution. I submit that it's hard to hit an evolutionist with a hand full of buckshot. No matter how you define it, it is wrong.

You are completely wrong, all I suggested was that he had misunderstood the definition of convergent evolution, which he had, I explained why and linked a definition for him to read. Even Gilbo agreed and we moved on. I said nothing about his understanding of evolution at all, just his use of that term in the point he was making. It was a friendly correction.

Notice that the first atheist post against you is that you don't understand evolution. I submit that it's hard to hit an evolutionist with a hand full of buckshot. No matter how you define it, it is wrong.

A good post, but I have often thought that a better question to ask an evolutionist is what or who tells the brain to send a signal on the neural pathways? The brain is physical, while the mind is not physical and can't evolve from the physical.

TeeJay

Yet in this case convergent evolution doesn't talk about mental functions... It is about how traits can be similar without being from descent... (It allows the evolutionist to claim anything that doesn't fit the evolutionary pattern to fit convergent evolution... basically it catches what falls through the cracks).

[quote] name='Frenger' timestamp='1333373084' post='82765']
You are completely wrong, all I suggested was that he had misunderstood the definition of convergent evolution, which he had, I explained why and linked a definition for him to read. Even Gilbo agreed and we moved on. I said nothing about his understanding of evolution at all, just his use of that term in the point he was making. It was a friendly correction.

Now may I fetch you a ladder to help you down from your high horse?
[/quote]

Frenger,

Alright already! But on my ranch, I ride a small Appaloosa mare. I've had her for 20 years. She's not a "high horse."

Alright already! But on my ranch, I ride a small Appaloosa mare. I've had her for 20 years. She's not a "high horse."

Question: What or who tells your brain to move your hand?

TeeJay

Hokey doke, I just feel it's a bit "me against the world" on this forum, and even when I'm trying to be polite I get criticised but yes, I do have past form

In answer to your question, it depends on the context really. Neuroscience suggests that our subconscious acts about 1 second before our conscious which kind of suggests that the decision has been made before we are even aware of it.

We are pattern seeking animals, we like things to fit in ways we already understand. If you play a high speed game like table tennis for example you'll be surprised at just how fast your hands and body moves in reaction to the ball and it's direction. I don't know if your a bit of a geek like me and have played table tennis before, but a good experiment is to try and "think" consciously about where the ball is going and what you should do, if you havent played let me tell you, it doesn't work, you will probably miss every single shot.

Another example is if like me you spent about 5 years needing glasses but not having them while learning the game of table tennis. When I finally got glasses my depth perception suddeny changed (I was short sighted...or long sighted in one eye, I can't remember which) but instead of making the adjustments my hand kept going about 2 inches off where the ball was. I had gotten so used to having bad depth perception that my brain had made the neural pathways based on the incorrect information and it took A LONG time to re-adjust.

So in short, it looks likely that the subconscious moves our hand and our conscious acts as a kind of feedback generator which makes new neural pathways or improves the previous ones.

As to your question "who" moves your hand, well, define what you mean by "who"?

Hokey doke, I just feel it's a bit "me against the world" on this forum, and even when I'm trying to be polite I get criticised but yes, I do have past form

In answer to your question, it depends on the context really. Neuroscience suggests that our subconscious acts about 1 second before our conscious which kind of suggests that the decision has been made before we are even aware of it.

We are pattern seeking animals, we like things to fit in ways we already understand. If you play a high speed game like table tennis for example you'll be surprised at just how fast your hands and body moves in reaction to the ball and it's direction. I don't know if your a bit of a geek like me and have played table tennis before, but a good experiment is to try and "think" consciously about where the ball is going and what you should do, if you havent played let me tell you, it doesn't work, you will probably miss every single shot.

Another example is if like me you spent about 5 years needing glasses but not having them while learning the game of table tennis. When I finally got glasses my depth perception suddeny changed (I was short sighted...or long sighted in one eye, I can't remember which) but instead of making the adjustments my hand kept going about 2 inches off where the ball was. I had gotten so used to having bad depth perception that my brain had made the neural pathways based on the incorrect information and it took A LONG time to re-adjust.

So in short, it looks likely that the subconscious moves our hand and our conscious acts as a kind of feedback generator which makes new neural pathways or improves the previous ones.

As to your question "who" moves your hand, well, define what you mean by "who"?

Whilst these pathways are necessary for the physical message to be sent to the nerves. I think the underlying position is to do with the immaterial mind.

This is normally linked to the consciousness of the self, personality, personal preferences, artistic quality / appreciation, emotions etc. According to the materialist we are just a brain in a body.. However considering that the brain is merely a connection of links, (like circuitry of a computer) then by rights a computer should experience such phenomena as well.

We know that memory is stored in the brain... But just HOW is it stored? Within the cells? Altering the firing potential?

Whilst these pathways are necessary for the physical message to be sent to the nerves. I think the underlying position is to do with the immaterial mind.

This is normally linked to the consciousness of the self, personality, personal preferences, artistic quality / appreciation, emotions etc. According to the materialist we are just a brain in a body.. However considering that the brain is merely a connection of links, (like circuitry of a computer) then by rights a computer should experience such phenomena as well.

We know that memory is stored in the brain... But just HOW is it stored? Within the cells? Altering the firing potential?

I'm not actually sure, it's a very difficult question. I am doing my dissertation on the origins of creativity but I am in my very early stages and I'm not even convinced I will get a solid conclusion. Neuroscience is in it's infancy and what we do know is extremely limited.

To your question how is it stored, well information can be stored on silicon in computer chips so that isn't too difficult a question, but how it is applied is a very difficult question. I'm not even sure if the human brain will ever be fully understood, if it is it certainly won't be in our lifetimes.

I'm not actually sure, it's a very difficult question. I am doing my dissertation on the origins of creativity but I am in my very early stages and I'm not even convinced I will get a solid conclusion. Neuroscience is in it's infancy and what we do know is extremely limited.

To your question how is it stored, well information can be stored on silicon in computer chips so that isn't too difficult a question, but how it is applied is a very difficult question. I'm not even sure if the human brain will ever be fully understood, if it is it certainly won't be in our lifetimes.

Interesting topic, just not one I have much of a clue about.

If that is the case, (and it was the same answer I was given in first year via my physiology lecturer, who was a neurosurgeon)... Then would you agree that it is premature for materialist evolutionists, (which is almost all), to claim that the brain is 100% physical and there is nothing immaterial about it.

Hence the facade that materialism is scientific is false since as we have seen here in this example it is based solely on a person's opinion or worldview with no supporting evidence to confer that the brain doesn't have an immaterial "part" to it.

Yet in this case convergent evolution doesn't talk about mental functions... It is about how traits can be similar without being from descent... (It allows the evolutionist to claim anything that doesn't fit the evolutionary pattern to fit convergent evolution... basically it catches what falls through the cracks).

Perhaps Goldliger meant something else.

I agree with the traditional meaning of "convergent evolution" to account for similar eye organs in different lineages, for example.

However, yes, in this case I'm referring to "convergence" in a much more general sense - two separate areas of the body "tending towards the same result". The "result" or "goal" in this case would be functionality itself.

So my point in the OP is that in order for virtually any muscle, organ, gland, or other physical attribute in the bodily makeup of an organism to actually work, requires a *mental* counterpart...

For example, the muscles in my pointer finger require some sort of neural connectivity in the brain such that they're able to move and be functional.

Therefore, according to evolution, random mutation not only had to provide the "raw material" (or supposed "new information") for the muscles of my pointer finger to form. Random mutation also had to provide the "raw material" (or supposed "new information") for the part of my brain that controls the muscles in my pointer finger...

The question then becomes, why would natural selection "select for" finger muscles without the mental capability to control them and make them functional?

Finger muscles (as with all muscles) are useless without their mental counterpart. And vice versa, the mental counterpart is useless without any finger muscles to control.

Therefore, ultimately it would seem clear that any attempted evolutionary explanation would have to posit some sort of "simultaneous" or "convergent" evolution for literally every single area of the body that is controlled by the brain.

In some cases, from an evolutionary perspective, even a single complex organism would require THOUSANDS of these "P and M pairings" to have occurred: Where *mindless changes* in genetic code not only had to hit the BODY of an organism to facilitate a given physical attribute, but ALSO had to hit the BRAIN of the organism such that the physical attribute functions!

But imagine the probability of that... It's so infinitesimally small that it's equivalent to impossible. Imagine how many millions of these "pairings" there are between every living thing that has a brain. The physical attributes are useless without the brain. The brain is useless without the physical attributes... But not just as a whole; every single isolated area of the brain with controls every single isolated area of the body would require mindless genetic mistakes to have occurred in JUST THE RIGHT WAY in both areas - such that mind and body work in harmony together.

Even ONE "pairing" such as this seems so improbable as to be impossible. The eye organ, and vision center of the brain, for example. But when you start considering that virtually every living creature with a brain is almost entirely *composed* of these complimentary "P and M pairings", I fail to see how evolution could even BEGIN to account for such a phenomenon.

I agree with the traditional meaning of "convergent evolution" to account for similar eye organs in different lineages, for example.

However, yes, in this case I'm referring to "convergence" in a much more general sense - two separate areas of the body "tending towards the same result". The "result" or "goal" in this case would be functionality itself.

So my point in the OP is that in order for virtually any muscle, organ, gland, or other physical attribute in the bodily makeup of an organism to actually work, requires a *mental* counterpart...

For example, the muscles in my pointer finger require some sort of neural connectivity in the brain such that they're able to move and be functional.

Therefore, according to evolution, random mutation not only had to provide the "raw material" (or supposed "new information") for the muscles of my pointer finger to form. Random mutation also had to provide the "raw material" (or supposed "new information") for the part of my brain that controls the muscles in my pointer finger...

The question then becomes, why would natural selection "select for" finger muscles without the mental capability to control them and make them functional?

Finger muscles (as with all muscles) are useless without their mental counterpart. And vice versa, the mental counterpart is useless without any finger muscles to control.

Therefore, ultimately it would seem clear that any attempted evolutionary explanation would have to posit some sort of "simultaneous" or "convergent" evolution for literally every single area of the body that is controlled by the brain.

In some cases, from an evolutionary perspective, even a single complex organism would require THOUSANDS of these "P and M pairings" to have occurred: Where *mindless changes* in genetic code not only had to hit the BODY of an organism to facilitate a given physical attribute, but ALSO had to hit the BRAIN of the organism such that the physical attribute functions!

But imagine the probability of that... It's so infinitesimally small that it's equivalent to impossible. Imagine how many millions of these "pairings" there are between every living thing that has a brain. The physical attributes are useless without the brain. The brain is useless without the physical attributes... But not just as a whole; every single isolated area of the brain with controls every single isolated area of the body would require mindless genetic mistakes to have occurred in JUST THE RIGHT WAY in both areas - such that mind and body work in harmony together.

Even ONE "pairing" such as this seems so improbable as to be impossible. The eye organ, and vision center of the brain, for example. But when you start considering that virtually every living creature with a brain is almost entirely *composed* of these complimentary "P and M pairings", I fail to see how evolution could even BEGIN to account for such a phenomenon.

Exactly

This is a macro level of the argument I use from cellular systems. How does the cell "know" what its DNA codes for, (its information), and when a new trait "evolves" how is this information incorporated by the cell, including the signal cascade etc.

Yes I like how you've hit the nail on the head.

"Therefore, ultimately it would seem clear that any attempted evolutionary explanation would have to posit some sort of "simultaneous" or "convergent" evolution for literally every single area of the body that is controlled by the brain."

No evolutionist I have spoke to has an idea for overcoming this problem. Basically this is the evidence by which Darwin was referring to when something that cannot be explained via a bit-by-bit process. As I've said elsewhere evolution is debunked on this alone....

Exactly This is a macro level of the argument I use from cellular systems. How does the cell "know" what its DNA codes for, (its information), and when a new trait "evolves" how is this information incorporated by the cell, including the signal cascade etc. Yes I like how you've hit the nail on the head. "Therefore, ultimately it would seem clear that any attempted evolutionary explanation would have to posit some sort of "simultaneous" or "convergent" evolution for literally every single area of the body that is controlled by the brain." No evolutionist I have spoke to has an idea for overcoming this problem. Basically this is the evidence by which Darwin was referring to when something that cannot be explained via a bit-by-bit process. As I've said elsewhere evolution is debunked on this alone.... ...But it will get ignored

//This is a macro level of the argument I use from cellular systems. How does the cell "know" what its DNA codes for, (its information), and when a new trait "evolves" how is this information incorporated by the cell, including the signal cascade etc.//

Really excellent point as well... Combine the two arguments, micro and macro, and an evos head might explode. Lol.